Somewhat parallel to what I see as the two legitimate uses of infographics (with no claim that there are only two): 1. presenting/supporting analytical results

Somewhat parallel to what I see as the two legitimate uses of infographics (with no claim that there are only two): 1. presenting/supporting analytical results 2. providing the viewer/reader with a way to explore data for new conclusions (cf Tufte) The first one is easier. E.g. I've identified that there were successive waves of support, in the Republican primaries, for Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, etc. and I can show a chart drawn from the Nate Silver do support this - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/reads-reactions-16/ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/reads-re... The chart both shows and supports the conclusion. Another "type 1" infographic in a poster/narrative style (via Tufte himself): http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0002w4 http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0... The second use is more tricky. The famous "Napoleon's campaign against Russia" chart does it well - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Minard.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Minard.pn... You can explore lots of different points. (And it works in the first sense as well - hitting you between the eyes with how many French soldiers died). My test for the first purpose is "what's the story?" If it's just "ooh, look at the pretty", the infographic has failed. And then of course you verify that the story is presented fairly. My test for the second purpose is whether the infographic rewards more examination, and, even more so, whether I can find patterns or links that the author/graphic artist might now have anticipated. E.g. in the Minard/Napoleon graphic, you could check how losses en route to Moscow correlate with losses on the way back. Given how often infographics fail both these tests, I'd say we're in an infographic bubble. Can't wait for it to burst.